So is gravity. You see a Scientific Theory is...
Ahh, the heck with it.
Right.
Inmates. Asylum.
Actually, most people who talk about the “Theory of Evolution” are not actually talking about Evolution Theory, but rather about the history of life. History is not science, much less a theory.
As I explain often, if you put a pencil on a table, and later find it on the floor, the theory of gravity that you note would explain how the pencil got on the floor. But if you were to say that the pencil fell to the floor because of gravity, you wouldn’t be discussing gravitational theory, but the history of the pencil.
And if you later found that someone took the pencil off the table, and put it on the floor, it would not invalidate the theory of gravity, but it would falsify your history of the pencil.
Evolution is demonstratable, but the history of man is not. Evolution does not preclude God having created the universe or man, it merely provides an alternative explanation for those who want to make up a history of the world that doesn’t require a God.
Some would say it was simply part of God’s plan to provide a plausible theory for those who wanted to ignore God’s existance. If science were to prove the existence of God, we would no longer need faith.
As to the shroud of Turin, soliton will get no argument from me. But I have no interest in arguing over it, or trying to disabuse anybody of their beliefs on that regard.
The difference between gravity and evolution is whenever gravity gets challenged, godless liberal NEA types don’t run with their hair on fire to the courthouse screaming “THEOCRACY” to sue people to be silenced everytime their theory is challenged.
I'm not endorsing anything that has been said for or against evolution on this thread, but I'd like to note that just a few weeks ago, a defender of evolution on this board told me that the fact that I think there is any such thing as proof in science shows beyond doubt (proves, if you will) that I am completely ignorant about what science is.